NEWS UPDATES
Get the latest news in advocacy projects, legislative updates and more!
Interested in 1:1 advocacy support or consultation? Click here to learn more or make a request!
Spotlight on the Workplace Violence Bill: A summary of the issues
Healthcare workers deserve to be safe. No one should go to[…]
Spotlight on the Workplace Violence Bill: Is the public being presented with distorted data?
How incomplete incidents, combined categories, and undisclosed data are shaping the[…]
Spotlight on the Workplace Violence Bill: What if we counted harm in the same way?
HOW TO MANUFACTURE AN ‘EVERY 36-MINUTES’ HEADLINE “A disabled adult is[…]
ACTION CENTER
If you are interested in supporting a bill or how to get involved, this is the section for you! Click on the bill you’re interested in for details or check out general info on getting involved.
H.5229/S.1389, An Act modernizing the six (6) fundamental rights addresses the rights of people receiving services in any program run, contracted or licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health.
A summary of the rights that the current law protects is available by clicking here. You can view the proposed bill versions by clicking on the bill number above.
Unfortunately, this bill was left in the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees at the end of the session and will not be moving forward.
The Respites & Rights Coalition* is currently regrouping. In the fall, they will be talking with legislators and looking at potential legislation and strategy updates with plans to resubmit the bill for the next legislative season.
There are no current actions to be taken, though if you have ideas on how to move forward you are always welcome to reach out!
Although this law is specific to Massachusetts, we welcome support from anyone and anywhere. The issues we’re dealing with here are not unique to MA. We are also all too aware that laws that get passed here can have significant impact on how things play out in other areas (and vice versa).
Learn more below in the talking points and contact info sections or in the resource section below!
*The Respite & Rights Coalition is a group made up of several organizations (Roots Up, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, MassACT, Wildflower Alliance) and individual advocates that has led the development and advocacy for this bill.
Below are examples of key talking points we have shared during the last legislative session in support of this bill:
- Five of the six Fundamental Rights were enacted in 1997 and haven’t been updated since. There are multiple ways in which they have become out-of-date.
- The original law offers little recourse when rights are violated. As a result, there are daily violations of these rights across the state. The proposed bill establishes a framework for accountability.
- Many people both receiving AND providing services are unaware of – or insufficiently familiar with – these rights which needs to change.
- Routine violations include lack of access to make and receive private phone calls, lack of flexibility for visits from guests (including legal advocates) and lack of access to information about these rights overall.
- The proposed bill addresses the reality that few people communicate by ‘snail’ mail these days and requires regular access to e-mail.
- It also addresses disability access issues, including requiring access to video phones for deaf people and similar.
- The bill addresses the need for culturally specific access to relevant personal care products for marginalized communities including Black, Indigenous and other people of color (BIPOC) and trans people (including hormone access in the House version of the bill).
- The original law was written at a time with Peer Supporters and Recovery Coaches were not common roles. People in these roles now play a critical part in many people’s support system. The proposed bill adds these and other roles to the list of providers and supporters who can more easily access people (who want their support), even when they’re staying on a locked unit.
- A significant contributor to rights violations has been lack of clarity about definitions, particularly where visitors are concerned. The proposed bill helps clarify that.
- The intention of the six Fundamental Rights has been to help ensure that people receiving mental health services in Massachusetts have, are aware of and are able to exercise their rights. However, having rights, seeing them violated and having no recourse to hold people accountable for that can be more harmful than not having rights at all. It is essential that these rights not only exist but that providers are accountable for following them. This bill will reduce powerlessness and increase the likelihood that this happens.
- Tensions, rights violations and a sense of powerlessness increases the risk of both suicide and aggression toward others.
- It is difficult to benefit from provider supports when there is no trust and no sense of personal agency on the part of people receiving services. This bill will provide a pathway to improving trust between those providing and receiving services and thus will also help increase the potential positive impact of services, as well.
- Clear laws and improved trust can only serve to make the provider’s job easier, as well.
If you have ideas, questions or other thoughts about this bill, you’re welcome to reach out to us at info@rootsup.info!
No sample letter is currently available.
H.5231/S.1381, An Act establishing peer-run respite centers throughout the Commonwealth, seeks to increase the number of peer respites in Massachusetts to at least one per county. It would also establish the first BIPOC specific peer respite, as well as another LGBTQIA+ specific peer respite.
At present, there are two peer respites in Western Massachusetts (Afiya and Anemoni) and three peer respites in Central Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, this bill got left in the House & Senate Ways and Means Committees this last legislative session and will not be moving forward.
The Respites & Rights Coalition* is currently regrouping. In the fall, they will be talking with legislators and looking at potential legislation and strategy updates with plans to resubmit the bill for the next legislative season.
There are no current actions to be taken, though if you have ideas on how to move forward you are always welcome to reach out!
Although this law is specific to Massachusetts, we welcome support from anyone and anywhere. The issues we’re dealing with here are not unique to MA. We are also all too aware that laws that get passed here can have significant impact on how things play out in other areas (and vice versa).
Learn more below in the talking points and contact info sections or in the resource section below!
*The Respite & Rights Coalition is a group made up of several organizations (Roots Up, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, MassACT, Wildflower Alliance) and individual advocates that has led the development and advocacy for this bill..
Below are examples of key talking points we shared throughout this past legislative season in support of this bill:
- In the last 20 years, peer respites have grown from just a few respites available across three states to dozens of respites in at least 16 states. Numbers continue to be on the upswing because of their value and demonstrated efficacy.
- Research has found a number of positive impacts related to peer respite. For example, research from the Human Services Research Institute found a 70% reduction in likelihood that someone who has used a peer respite will return to using the hospital.
- Another critical impact research has found is an increase in ‘self-reliance’. In other words, people who stay at a peer respite appear to have more confidence that they will be able to navigate a future crisis without intervention from the clinical crisis system.
- Research has also found an increase in sense of being a part of a community from people who have stayed at a peer respite.
- Peer respite emphasizes self-determination and personal agency which are strongly associated with reductions in thoughts of suicide. On the other hand, data suggests that there can be as much as a 100X increase in risk of suicide following a stay on an inpatient psychiatric unit.
- Peer respite and other crisis alternatives have strong potential for diverting people from hospitals and Emergency Departments and positively impacting the ED boarding crisis.
- Peer respite is cheaper than conventional clinical care. Average costs of a stay on an inpatient unit range from $11,000 to over $15,000. A stay at a peer respite is typically under $5,000.
- Peer respites can also help prevent or interrupt a cycle of someone going in and out of hospitals or otherwise getting stuck in the mental health system. This can generate additional savings by preventing future hospital stays, as well as reducing the likelihood of someone ending up on long-term disability.
- Peer respites also help prevent harms that can result from failures to pay rent or bills that can happen when someone is in the hospital and has minimal ability to contact people or access bills and other information.
- Although it’s great that Massachusetts already has five peer respites, that falls far short of being accessible to most parts of the state. In order to fully realize the benefits, at least one per county is needed.
- Even in areas where peer respites exist, demand is so high that they almost always have wait lists to get in. Having to wait prevents communities from fully realizing the benefit of a program that can divert people from hospitals and Emergency Departments.
- Peer respites often reach people who would be afraid to reach out for help at all and/or who feel alienated from the conventional clinical system.
- Affinity group peer respites (such as those that are BIPOC or LGBTQIA+ specific) have an unmatched ability to create culturally specific spaces led by and for people who are among the most marginalized and vulnerable within our communities.
- Peer respites are founded on harm reduction principles. They make space to talk about ‘taboo topics’ (like suicide, self-injury, etc.) that many people feel unable to talk about elsewhere, as well as making space for many paths forward.
If you have ideas, questions or other thoughts about this bill, you’re welcome to reach out to us at info@rootsup.info!
H.1801 / S.2973, An Act to provide continuum of care for severe mental illness, is the latest attempt to bring Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC, better known as “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” or “AOT”) to Massachusetts. Massachusetts is one of only two states and territories remaining in the US without an IOC law.
In brief, unlike Involuntary INPATIENT Commitment which focuses on forced commitment to inpatient psychiatric units, IOC focuses on a form of court order that forces people to follow treatment orders even in the privacy of their own home and under threat of being summoned to court and/or sent to a locked psychiatric unit if they do not.
In February, 2026, the House sent H.1801 to ‘study’. Following that, the Senate moved the bill forward to Ways & Means, but then left it there at the end of the legislative session. It will not be moving forward.
We are currently preparing for the next legislative season and have been working on an IOC library that we hope will continue to better prepare us for ensuring this bill is not passed in the future.
Learn more below in the talking points and contact info sections or in the resource section below!
If you have time, we strongly urge you to check out the IOC resource section below. It’s full of articles, videos, podcasts and fact sheets with lots of information about why this bill is dangerous to our community.
Below are examples of key talking points we emphasized throughout the last legislative season in opposition of this bill:
- Higher quality, more rigorous studies have failed to find positive impacts from IOC.
- Most “positive” results are being reported from deeply flawed studies focused on limited geography (almost entirely New York). For example, some studies reporting positive results use primarily self-reported data collected by people working within the IOC program which is a conflict of interest and likely to result in fear-based responses and biased data analysis.
- Results of research with positive findings are also often skewed by a high dropout rate (nearly one third) when people die or disappear. This inevitably makes results look more positive than they are as the people ‘dropping out’ are not generally experiencing positive outcomes.
- While big claims are made about IOC’s ability to reduce homelessness, hospitalization rates and criminal involvement, some studies have found limited or even negative impacts on these areas.
- Higher quality studies routinely find that participants experience an increase in coercion. Coercion and force are now associated with increased risk of suicide and aggression.
- Proponents of IOC generally re.ly on highly debatable concepts like “Anosognosia”. Anosognosia is a recognized neurological condition for people who’ve had strokes or other brain injuries. However, it has not been validated as a concept for people with psychiatric histories and often ignores the many reasons why people might deny their diagnoses or avoid treatment
- Ignoring mistrust of the system doesn’t lead to improvements in the future. Research tells us that people are not more likely (and may be less likely) to follow their treatment orders after having been subject to IOC.
- Research has found significant disparities, particularly for Black and Brown people who are already more likely to be subjected to force in the psychiatric system.
- IOC is very costly to implement and pulls funds away from more effective supports.
- The Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) – a federal body responsible for reporting to Congress – recently came out with a report labeling IOC’s efficacy as “inconclusive” and recognizing some of the studies showing positive outcomes as deficient.
- Proponents of IOC argue that IOC isn’t force, but rather that it prevents force. However, when asked directly, many people say they would prefer periodic inpatient stays over an IOC order.
- IOC proponents claim that IOC sets a high bar that would mean only a very small minority of people would qualify for an order. However, most laws include criteria along the lines of “two hospitalizations in three years” which would apply to many people at the most difficult times in their life.
If you have thoughts or ideas for our continued advocacy on this issue, you can reach us at info@rootsup.info.
You can view and reach out to the full Senate Ways & Means Committee HERE and the full House Ways & Means Committee HERE
H.4767/S.3171, An Act requiring health care employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence, is now in Conference Committee where three Representatives and three Senators will work together to come up with a final version.
Some form of this bill will almost certainly be voted into law by early January 2027, but the committee could move a finalized version of the bill forward at any time and with minimal notice.
Although this law is specific to Massachusetts, we welcome support from anyone and anywhere. Laws of this nature pose a serious threat to people across all regions.
Learn more below in the talking points and contact info sections or in the resource section below!
You can take action by sending your thoughts to the Conference Committee Members:
- Representative Day: Michael.Day@mahouse.gov
- Representative Fluker-Reid: Brandy.FlukerReid@mahouse.gov
- Representative Kane: Hannah.Kane@mahouse.gov
- Senator Friedman: Cindy.Friedman@masenate.gov
- Senator Lovely: Joan.Lovely@masenate.gov
- Senator Dooner: kelly.dooner@masenate.gov
An editable draft letter to the committee is available here!
We also strongly urge you to read through the ‘Spotlight on the workplace violence bill’ series available here.
We strongly urge you to read through the ‘Spotlight on the workplace violence bill’ series for additional data and talking points.
Below are examples of key talking points:
- Research suggests that increased penalties do not carry a significant or reliable deterrent effect.
- Felony charges can cause permanent and severe harm to people’s ability to obtain housing and maintain employment, as well as to immigration status and more.
- Data out of Washington State has shown a significant disparity in application of felony charges on people with psychiatric histories.
- The proposed bill does not take into consideration the impact of force and involuntary treatment – or any other antecedents – to any acts that are perceived as violence.
- The MNA and MHA have both promoted statistics that are misleading in terms of frequency of violence. They are not disclosing the breakdown of verbal versus physical assault.
- Provisions that allow for lists of people seen as ‘risky’ or ‘violent’ (or that move in that direction) have often caused harm. There is already significant data suggesting racial disparities in how these sorts of ‘flags’ are used.
- This bill fails to look at how treatment of patients and others receiving services may lead to an increased risk of aggression, although data is available to support that fact.
- Current and former patients and advocacy groups have been left out of this process and the bill fails to include them in any feedback or implementation.
- There is no current data suggesting that measures proposed in this bill have actually led to a decrease in workplace violence in other states. In fact, it’s hard to evaluate impact at all because no state has required comprehensive, independent evaluation at all.
Below are some of the asks we encourage you to consider making to the Conference Committee:
- Reject the House felony provision and preserve the Senate’s worker protections, prevention requirements, de-escalation language, and eligibility for consideration under pretrial diversion.
- Remove the proposed interagency data-sharing and patient-list infrastructure.
- Remove the warrantless-arrest expansion—or, at an absolute minimum, exclude group homes, disability-related conduct, psychiatric or disability evaluations, involuntary treatment, and encounters involving prior uses of force.
- Require meaningful, compensated participation by current and former patients, psychiatric survivors, disabled people, and independent advocacy groups in training, implementation, evaluation, and policy development.
- Require facilities to count the whole encounter and hold employers accountable for staffing, communication access, training, complaint systems, prevention planning, and corrective action.
- Require independent evaluation, public reporting, disparity analysis, and sunset provisions.
Again, you can send a letter to the members of the conference committee as follows:
- Representative Day: Michael.Day@mahouse.gov
- Representative Fluker-Reid: Brandy.FlukerReid@mahouse.gov
- Representative Kane: Hannah.Kane@mahouse.gov
- Senator Friedman: Cindy.Friedman@masenate.gov
- Senator Lovely: Joan.Lovely@masenate.gov
- Senator Dooner: kelly.dooner@masenate.gov
You can also find a draft letter here to edit and send to the conference committee…
